Get Registered Courses

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys read-only intent via 'Return' and lists returned fields, but it does not explain what happens when the optional semester is omitted (default null), whether an authenticated OBS session is required, or how invalid semester values are handled. Basic safe-read behavior is clear, but edge-case behavior is left unspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence with the action, scope, and output fields; no filler or repetition. It could include more detail, but conciseness itself is excellent and the key information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be restated. However, the definition omits the semester format/default behavior, authentication expectations, and sibling routing, which matters given the large OBS tool family. An agent would not have enough context to reliably select or invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'for one semester' ascribes the semantic role of the semester parameter, but it gives no format examples, accepted values, or explanation of the null default. This is only marginal compensation over the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies a read operation: it 'return[s]' the courses the student is registered to, scoped to one semester, and specifies output fields (CRN, place, time). This distinguishes it from broad course-listing tools, but it does not explicitly contrast any sibling such as obs_get_schedule or obs_get_course_history, so it does not earn a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool instead of obs_get_schedule, obs_get_course_history, or obs_get_registration_status. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names are mentioned; usage is only implied by the phrase 'registered to'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.